Laserfiche WebLink
FILE # LA22-000068 <br />19 September 2022 <br />Page 4 of 5 <br />6. The board or the council may not permit as a variance any use that is not permitted under Orono <br />City Code Chapter 78 for property in the zone where the affected person's land is located. This <br />condition is not applicable, as residential improvements are an allowed use in the LR -1C District. <br />7. The board or council may permit as a variance the temporary use of a one -family dwelling as a two- <br />family dwelling. This condition is not applicable. <br />8. The special conditions applying to the structure or land in question are peculiar to such property or <br />immediately adjoining property. The slope of the property combined with the pre-existing <br />improvements are unique conditions affecting the subject property. <br />9. The conditions do not apply generally to other land or structures in the district in which the land is <br />located. The steep slope, existing timber wall configuration, and the existing improvements create <br />conditions which do not apply to all of the adjacent properties. <br />10. The granting of the application is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of a substantial <br />property right of the applicant. Granting bluff and lake setback variances to allow the retaining <br />walls within the 75 -foot lake setback to remain as constructed with an expanded footprint is <br />reasonable, is a better solution long-term, and is necessary to preserve the rights of the owner. <br />The variance is supported by the vulnerable slope on the property. <br />11. The granting of the proposed variance will not in any way impair health, safety, comfort or morals, <br />or in any other respect be contrary to the intent of this chapter. Granting the lake yard setback <br />variance allowing the retaining walls within the bluff and 75 -foot lake setback will not adversely <br />impact health, safety, comfort or morals, or in any way be contrary to the ordinances. <br />12. The granting of such variance will not merely serve as a convenience to the applicant, but is <br />necessary to alleviate demonstrable difficulty. The proposed/as-constructed walls within the lake <br />yard will continue to preserve the integrity of the slope and there is no conforming location to <br />install the retaining walls which would protect the slope. Preserving the existing wall is necessary <br />for the protection of the slope and the lake. <br />The Commission may recommend or Council may impose conditions in granting of variances. Any conditions <br />imposed must be directly related to and must bear a rough proportionality to the impact created by the <br />variance. No variance shall be granted or changed beyond the use permitted in this chapter in the district <br />where such land is located. <br />Engineer Review <br />As part of the approval for the emergency slope repair, the City Council directed the applicant to provide an <br />engineer's opinion regarding the stability of the slopes on the neighboring properties, the opinion letter is <br />attached as Exhibit H. <br />Public Comments <br />Comments from the public have been received and are attached as Exhibit L. <br />Issues for Consideration <br />1. Does the Planning Commission find that that the property owner proposes to use the property in <br />a reasonable manner which is not permitted by an official control? <br />2. Does the Planning Commission find that the variance(s), if granted, will not alter the essential <br />character of the neighborhood? <br />3. Does the Commission find it necessary to impose conditions in order to mitigate the impacts <br />created by the granting of the requested variance(s)? <br />4. Are there any other issues or concerns with this application? <br />